May parental refusal to vaccinate a child, under the present circumstances, be constitutionally considered child neglect?

Under the New York Family Court Act 1012“(f) “Neglected child” means a child less than eighteen years of age


(i) whose physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of his parent or other person legally responsible for his care to exercise a minimum degree of care

 (A) [Eff. March 7, 2019.] in supplying the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter or education in accordance with the provisions of part one of article sixty-five of the education law, or medical, dental, optometrical or surgical care, though financially able to do so or offered financial or other reasonable means to do so, or, in the case of an alleged failure of the respondent to provide education to the child, notwithstanding the efforts of the school district or local educational agency and child protective agency to ameliorate such alleged failure prior to the filing of the petition;  or


(B) in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship, by unreasonably inflicting or allowing to be inflicted harm, or a substantial risk thereof, including the infliction of excessive corporal punishment;  or by misusing a drug or drugs;  or by misusing alcoholic beverages to the extent that he loses self-control of his actions;  or by any other acts of a similarly serious nature requiring the aid of the court;  provided, however, that where the respondent is voluntarily and regularly participating in a rehabilitative program, evidence that the respondent has repeatedly misused a drug or drugs or alcoholic beverages to the extent that he loses self-control of his actions shall not establish that the child is a neglected child in the absence of evidence establishing that the child's physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as set forth in paragraph (i) of this subdivision;  or


(ii) who has been abandoned, in accordance with the definition and other criteria set forth in subdivision five of section three hundred eighty-four-b of the social services law , by his parents or other person legally responsible for his care.”

Minimum degree of care

Note in the definition of neglect the requirement that the parent has to exercise only a “minimum degree of care”.  Not “good” care, not the care that a social services worker, or a teacher, considers “appropriate” – but a “minimum” degree of care.

Medical advice by school officials

Another example, social services increasingly charge parents for failure to follow “advice” of school officials to subject the child to mental health counseling and/or put him on mind-altering drugs.

Of course, a teacher’s “advice” is not medical advice, and, a parent’s refusal to follow medical advice of a non-medical professional cannot possibly constitute failure to exercise a minimum degree of care that the law requires.   


The parent should bear in mind that the burden of proof in such proceedings is on the social services.  If the parent has never allowed his child to go to “counseling”, even to a school “counselor” who would construct a mental disability out of thin air in order to have the school receive additional funds for educating a “child with a disability”, social services will not be able to prove that the child ever needed counseling, and that the parent’s refusal to allow such counseling was medical neglect.

Vaccinations and other doctors’ advice

New York has recently introduced a law allowing schools to forbid bringing to school non-vaccinated children.

At the same time, New York law mandates public education of children from K to 12, from 5 to 18 years of age, and not bringing a child to school, in the absence of documented homeschooling, may be charged against the parent:

·        in Family Court:

o   as an educational child neglect;

o   as a medical child neglect; and

·        in criminal court:

o   as a crime of misdemeanor, Endangering welfare of a child, Penal Law Section 260.10.

Yet, nobody cancelled yet the right of a parent to informed consent to medical care of the child.

And, remember, child neglect is failure of the parent to exercise a “minimum degree of care”, FCA 1012(f)(i).


Side effects and counter-indications for the vaccines can be found at the government portal of information, Daily Med[1], with a free access to it on the Internet.


Since it is a government portal of information (extension .gov), everything published there is a public record admissible in court.


The parent may find brand names of vaccines to verify their side effects in the government vaccine schedules at the CDC website[2].



Let’s take, for example, the measles vaccine – the subject of controversy and litigation in New York.


First, note that the government information from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) brands the measles M-M-R vaccine as a “live attenuated” vaccine, meaning that live viruses are introduced into the child’s body with this vaccine.


Now, let’s put “M-M-R-II” into the Daily Med search window and click “enter”.

This is the information that has come out about this vaccine.


This is the “description” of what this vaccine is:


“M-M-R® II (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Virus Vaccine Live) is a live virus vaccine for vaccination against measles (rubeola), mumps, and rubella (German measles).


M-M-R II is a sterile lyophilized preparation of (1) ATTENUVAX® (Measles Virus Vaccine Live), a more attenuated line of measles virus, derived from Enders' attenuated Edmonston strain and propagated in chick embryo cell culture; (2) MUMPSVAX® (Mumps Virus Vaccine Live), the Jeryl Lynn™ (B level) strain of mumps virus propagated in chick embryo cell culture; and (3) MERUVAX® II (Rubella Virus Vaccine Live), the Wistar RA 27/3 strain of live attenuated rubella virus propagated in WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts.{1,2}


The growth medium for measles and mumps is Medium 199 (a buffered salt solution containing vitamins and amino acids and supplemented with fetal bovine serum) containing SPGA (sucrose, phosphate, glutamate, and recombinant human albumin) as stabilizer and neomycin.


The growth medium for rubella is Minimum Essential Medium (MEM) [a buffered salt solution containing vitamins and amino acids and supplemented with fetal bovine serum] containing recombinant human albumin and neomycin. Sorbitol and hydrolyzed gelatin stabilizer are added to the individual virus harvests.


The cells, virus pools, and fetal bovine serum are all screened for the absence of adventitious agents.

The reconstituted vaccine is for subcutaneous administration. Each 0.5 mL dose contains not less than 1,000 TCID50 (tissue culture infectious doses) of measles virus; 12,500 TCID50 of mumps virus; and 1,000 TCID50 of rubella virus. Each dose of the vaccine is calculated to contain sorbitol (14.5 mg), sodium phosphate, sucrose (1.9 mg), sodium chloride, hydrolyzed gelatin (14.5 mg), recombinant human albumin (≤0.3 mg), fetal bovine serum (<1 ppm), other buffer and media ingredients and approximately 25 mcg of neomycin. The product contains no preservative.


Before reconstitution, the lyophilized vaccine is a light yellow compact crystalline plug. M-M-R II, when reconstituted as directed, is clear yellow.”


Well.


Not only the vaccine contains foreign proteins:

1.  chicken embryo cells;
2.  cow (bovine) embryo cells;
3. hydrolyzed gelatin;
4. “human diploid lung fibroblasts”; and
5. Human albumin;

It also contains the following chemical "stabilizers":

1. ·        Sucrose;
2. ·        Sorbitol;
3. ·        Sodium phosphate;
4. Sodium chloride;
5. Glutamate;
6. “other buffer and media ingredients”

And an antibiotic:

·        Neomycin.

Of course, children are not tested before the de facto mandatory vaccination for allergies to all of these components.


Note how tricky the manufacturer of the vaccine (MERCK) behaved when it listed, in the official leaflet, the official listed counterindications to the M-M-R-II (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine:


“CONTRAINDICATIONS 


Hypersensitivity to any component of the vaccine, including gelatin.{40}


Do not give M-M-R II to pregnant females; the possible effects of the vaccine on fetal development are unknown at this time.  If vaccination of postpubertal females is undertaken, pregnancy should be avoided for three months following vaccination (see INDICATIONS AND USAGE, Non-Pregnant Adolescent and Adult Females and PRECAUTIONS, Pregnancy).


Anaphylactic or anaphylactoid reactions to neomycin (each dose of reconstituted vaccine contains approximately 25 mcg of neomycin).


Febrile respiratory illness or other active febrile infection. However, the ACIP has recommended that all vaccines can be administered to persons with minor illnesses such as diarrhea, mild upper respiratory infection with or without low-grade fever, or other low-grade febrile illness.{41}


Patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy. This contraindication does not apply to patients who are receiving corticosteroids as replacement therapy, e.g., for Addison's disease.


Individuals with blood dyscrasias, leukemia, lymphomas of any type, or other malignant neoplasms affecting the bone marrow or lymphatic systems.

Primary and acquired immunodeficiency states, including patients who are immunosuppressed in association with AIDS or other clinical manifestations of infection with human immunodeficiency viruses;{41-43} cellular immune deficiencies; and hypogammaglobulinemic and dysgammaglobulinemic states. Measles inclusion body encephalitis{44} (MIBE), pneumonitis{45} and death as a direct consequence of disseminated measles vaccine virus infection have been reported in immunocompromised individuals inadvertently vaccinated with measles-containing vaccine. 


Individuals with a family history of congenital or hereditary immunodeficiency, until the immune competence of the potential vaccine recipient is demonstrated.”


The parent cannot even have an ability to give informed consent for introducing this vaccine into his child’s body because, most likely:

1)     He is not given information about all the ingredients that are introduced into the child’s body with the vaccine, because

2)     There are components of the vaccine that are not listed and are secret “other buffer and media ingredients”; because

3)     Children are not tested for “hypersensitivity” to such vaccines before they are introduced into their bodies; and

4)     Most of parents do not know what those words mean and what kind of allergies they can cause.

Yet, the possible side effect of the vaccine is “anaphylactic shock” (death), and the parent MUST have a right to decline to give consent to introduce into his child’s body something that may cause the child’s death – until:

1)     All the ingredients of the vaccine are publicly listed;

2)     All materials and results of clinical trials in children of this vaccines are publicly listed;

3)     Until each parent is given that list of components and explained possible consequences of exposure of his child to each of these ingredients;

4)     Until each child is tested for hypersensitivity of every component of the vaccine prior to that vaccine being put into the child’s body.

Whenever death or serious bodily injury is listed as a possible side effect and wherever any components of a compound that is to be introduced into a child’s body is unknown, a parent has no ability to give a proper informed consent to vaccinate his child, and refusal to vaccinate his child may not be deemed, as a matter of law, as failure to provide minimum care of the child and child neglect.

If the school does not allow the child to be educated in school because of the parent’s withholding of informed consent to vaccinate on these grounds, the cause of the child not receiving the education is the school and not the parent, and educational neglect or criminal charges for “endangering welfare of a child” may not be sustained as a matter of law.


Merck has shifted its own liability for what happens to the child to the child's doctor to check each child for hypersensitivity for all ingredients of the vaccine.


But, doctors cannot do that checking fully either, since there are unknown “buffer and media ingredients” in the vaccine.  

Doctors cannot check for hypersensitivity for unknown ingredients.


At the same time, the government has deprived children whowere injured or died from exposure to vaccines of their right to sue manufacturersof the vaccines for damages, and is thus preventing children from even establishing the causal connection between their injuries and the vaccines.

Under such circumstances, parent cannot be expected by the government to give informed consent – while information about safety of the vaccines is deliberately blocked by:

1)     Vaccine manufacturers;

2)     The government; and

3)     By doctors.

I I wonder - have these issues, based on public information, in open access, been raised in the New York vaccine litigation?

---

[1] https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/ .

[2] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/us-vaccines.pdf .

Why does the ACLU support the CPS in child protective proceedings? Follow the money - and identity politics that drive the ACLU's' donations. Violating constitutional parental rights to have children placed with married homosexaul male couples.

“Child protective” proceedings – while very frequent (over 2 million child maltreatment complaints are lodged in the U.S. per year) – are not very well understood, even by professional lawyers practicing in such courts and by judges presiding over such proceedings.

No surprises there – law schools, possibly, deliberately, at the request of the state, for purposes of law enforcement and for purposes of getting more money in federal grants for adoptions out of foster care and for sustaining CPS in its current size, do not teach courses of how to protect parents in such proceedings, there are no textbooks on this subject, and this subject is not tested on any bar exams.

Therefore, neither judges, nor attorneys practicing in such proceedings, are specifically trained to understand and apply the complex, varied and often convoluted laws involved in such proceedings.

That means that when an attorney is assigned in such proceedings to an indigent party who does not have a right under the current law to choose the quality of assigned counsel, has no assurance from the attorney’s law license that the assigned counsel, to put it in plain language, has a clue as to what to do and how to defend his client in such proceedings, proceedings that care a dire risk of losing, forever, the client’s parental rights.

Moreover, many attorneys and most civil rights organizations would not touch such proceedings with a ten-foot pole – they are too “controversial” for them to consider being involved in, because, think about it, how can anyone DEFEND somebody who is even accused of mistreating a baby?

When I was practicing in such proceedings as an attorney, and practicing civil rights litigation in federal court, I often had clients coming to me and complaining that the ACLU refused to get involved whenever CPS was mentioned.

So, why the change of heart now?

Suddenly, the ACLU takes a very pronounced stand – and on the side of CPS, too, even though that is not openly mentioned – in child protective proceedings, and not once, but twice, and very publicly.

First, the ACLU took a very fiery stand against - of course - against President Trump and the South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster, for:

1. Asking Trump to give South Carolina an exemption from the requirement not to discriminate in agencies handling child welfare (McMaster); and
2. For granting such an exemption (Trump) - 

where the case concerned an agency picking foster parents to - well, foster - children placed with them by South Carolina Social Services.  The agency accepted for the position of foster parents only parents who were Protestants (usually white non-Jewish people) and rejected everybody else.

The second fiery stand of ACLU happened when it defended the "rights" of LGBT candidates to (free) adoptions out of foster care.

The ACLU that usually 

• refuses to participate in defending the rights of BIOLOGICAL parents in pending child protective proceedings, while the court did not determine yet that biological parents did anything wrong and while CONSTITUTIONAL parental rights of biological parents are far from being terminated,
• started to ardently defend "equal rights" of foster parents.

The equal rights that the ACLU pushed were:

• in government employment - a good point; and
• in the right of FOSTER parents to ADOPT - which is, at the time when the case is still pending in court, means SIDING WITH CPS and PREJUDGING every child protective proceeding, once it is file and once the child is removed during such a proceeding in foster care, that the biological parent is wrong, his rights will be terminated, and the foster parents will happily become adoptive parents.  

On the cheap, by the way.

I have seen discussions on forums, in groups where the would-be adoptive parents participated, and where social services employees also participated - and the social worker openly advised the would-be adoptive parent, as a CHEAPEST way to adoption, to consider becoming a foster parent, explaining that the adoption will be free for them, instead of $25,000 to $50,000 price-tag for a private adoption, and, on top of that, there are large and various subsidies by the government paid to foster and then to adoptive parents.

But, but, but, but, but...

BUT.

Parental rights, as the US Supreme Court declared, are constitutional rights, they cannot be PRESUMED GONE once CPS yanks the child and puts him or her into foster care.

The law squarely puts the burden of proof in child protective proceedings on CPS, the Petitioner.

It is the Petitioner, the CPS who must PROVE that the parent did something wrong - even if the child is already taken away from the parent, as a precaution only, the CPS and the law says about such removals, but without automatic presumption of wrongdoing or termination of parental rights on removal of the child.

The law also requires, while the child is in foster care, that the CPS make efforts to "REUNIFY" the child with the child's biological parents.

Now, of course, the law should not create incentives, especially where major human rights are concerned, such as parental rights and the right of the child to be raised by his own biological father and mother and have contact with his extended biological family, which would run one against another.

Yet, that is exactly what was done when CPS

1/ still has a burden of proof that the parent did something wrong, still has, by law, a duty to make efforts to reunite children placed by CPS into foster care and the children's biological parents; and

2/ given money if it places children for adoption with strangers (non-family) out of foster care, but 

3/ not given money if CPS reunites children with the child's biological parents - or places them for adoption with family.

To me, it is obvious that lobbying by wealthy childless people who did not want to pay for private adoption were at work in creating such a law where the money outweighs parental constitutional rights - as it always does.

In fact, this same law could be written in such a way that the money would side with preserving constitutional rights, or at least keeping the child within the family - if CPS would be paid MORE, and MUCH, MUCH MORE for adoption with family members, than for adoption with strangers.

The way it is, the incentive exists for CPS to declare in court that it is trying hard to make efforts to reunite children in foster care with their biological parents, while in reality choosing to FOSTER the children people who want to ADOPT them - meaning, from day 1 of foster care the child is placed with people who are interested to terminate biological rights of parents - and to save money by avoiding private adoption fees and, instead, get lots and lots of government subsidies.

A very special category in the flock of would-be foster/adoptive parents are male same-sex married couples.  Yes, yes, yes, I am going to talk about it openly - because, 1. I want to, 2. I do not care what anybody will say about me for touching this explosive subject not the politically correct way, and 3. I am retired, do not seek employment, and do not seek any benefits from the government - meaning, nobody can fire me or deny me those benefits in retaliation for what I say here.

So.

What kind of incentive that would be contrary to the law that supports CONSTITUTIONAL parental rights of children in foster care during the pendency of child protective proceedings, while the CPS still did not prove any wrongdoing on behalf of biological parents - would this particular social group, LGBT candidates for adoptive parents, have?

Let's see.

When a same-sex FEMALE married couple wants a child, and they are fertile (let's assume for purposes of the argument), all they have to do is for one of the partners/spouses to have sexual intercourse with a fertile man, or to have a trip to a sperm bank for artificial insemination.  They will use their own wombs to carry the child to birth.

When a same sex MALE married couple wants a child, it is more complicated, since, biologically, they can both sire a child, but cannot carry it to birth.  Thus, to have a child, a male same sex couple must (1) hire a surrogate - which may cost a lot of money and may be illegal in some states, or (2) adopt - which, with a private adoption may also cost a lot of money.

And, here - tada! - comes the ACLU with a shout of discrimination against the LGBT foster parents.

The ACLU, once again, when arguing that LGBT candidates for adoption out of foster care are discriminated against, does not even mention that their position to support ANY parent who wants to adopt out of foster care may be siding with the CPS at the time when not only parental rights of biological parents, but there is no court decision indicating that biological parents did anything wrong.

Instead, the ACLU paints a one side grim/ one side rosy picture where hundreds of thousands of foster children are languishing in foster care in the hope of - no, not return of their Mommy and Daddy, or uncle, or aunt, or grandparents, or godparents, or any relative or neighbor - but to be given to strangers, forever.

Yet, the ACLU somehow modestly overlooks the fact that in child protective proceedings foster parents are not given a separate party status with rights to custody of a child, moreover, the legal custody is never placed with foster parents while they are taking care of the child.  The legal custody, throughout foster care, remains with CPS, and foster parents are, legally, not more than hired contractors for CPS.

Moreover, the ACLU modestly overlooks when pushing the so-called "rights" of foster parents, and especially the male same-sex parents who cannot get a child any other way biologically, that if a foster parent attempts to undermine the child-biological parent bond, trying to "wean" the child off of his love and affection to biological parents, trying to have foster children call them "Mom" and "Dad" instead of their own biological parents (as they often do, but usually refuse to admit that - in court), if brought up in court, it will be held as foster care parents' misconduct, misconduct of CPS and a reason why the child needs to be returned to the parents, or at least placed with another foster parent who would not try to sever the child's bond with the parent before the court finds any wrongdoing by that parent.

I wonder, how much did the wealthy same sex couples donate to the ACLU coffers so that the ACLU, an organization of lawyers, and an organization of supposedly civil rights lawyers, whose job is to know constitutional law, and to know it well, in order for the ACLU take sides in proceedings that they usually never touched, on the side of CPS (without publicly mentioning it), and on the side of a party committing misconduct in such proceedings, weaning children off their affection towards their biological parents before any wrongdoing by those parents is found the court.

Foster parents and adoptive parents may never be the same people.

There is too much incentive to place a child with a childless couple yearning to adopt for that couple to disregard any rules and constitutional law and, in the privacy of their home, to work to undermine the child's bond with his biological parents.

Too many times biological parents whose children are placed in foster care report that foster parents block their communication with children, do not let them enough phone communication, teach children to call foster parents Mom and Dad, teach children how good they will have it if the foster parents would adopt them, and buying favors of small children - who, when separated from their biological parents, often for years, are easy prey for such emotional bribes.

You cannot give people money (or/and an opportunity to save money) on one thing and expect them to do a diametrically opposite thing, no matter how right, proper or legal that opposite thing is.

You cannot give the CPS thousands of dollars per head of children adopted out of foster care to strangers and expect the CPS not to crave those thousands of dollars or try to get it, by any means.

You cannot give the adoptive parents an opportunity to save 25 to 50 thousands dollars on adoption alone, and then place a child in the care of such would-be adoptive parents hoping that they will behave and not try to bring that adoption about, by any means, including not means that are not legal or proper.

Time and again I had foster parents and CPS lie in court under oath when answering accusations of parents that foster parents are trying to wean children placed in foster care from their bond, love and affection with biological parents, in order to adopt them.

Perjury is a crime.

I did not see ONCE a foster parent prosecuted for it.

You know why?  Because, by law, the criminal prosecutor acts together with CPS in such investigations and proceedings - and, likely, shares the benefits from federal grants received from the bounty of putting children up for adoption for federal money.

There is no reason for the DA to shoot himself in the foot and charge the foster parent for perjury - even if that same foster parent openly discusses online, on social media, that all he dreams about is how the adopt the child in his foster care, and that he already taught the child to call him Dad - contrary to what he said to the court, under oath.

What can we do?

We the People are not helpless in this, even when, in our darkest hour, it appears this way.

We can insist with our representatives in our legislative bodies to change laws that provide such perverted incentives.

To PAY MORE - if the incentive is even needed - to adoption by FAMILY members, or, better, for SHARED CUSTODY arrangements when the biological parent is not severed the child's life.

Or, to take the money incentives away from child protective proceedings completely.

Because now it resembles - too much so - child trafficking to the highest bidder.

And, people should finally realize that, until and unless a biological parents rights are terminated, there cannot be any "rights" of foster parents, especially not any "rights" beating those of biological parents, and of the child to reunite with them.

Not for money.

Not for political correctness.

Not to appease anybody's claims - of religious discrimination, or anti-LGBT discrimination.

Rights of biological parents and their children for family integrity, for the bond with the biological parents are constitutional rights.

Foster parents' rights are not even recognized by law.

Let's keep it this way.

Meanwhile, the ACLU is suing also in Michigan pushing, again, the "rights" of foster parents, of course - not biological parents.

Remember - siding with "rights" of foster parents is siding, against the law with CPS's rights to prepare a child for adoption before the state has proven that the biological parents have done ANYTHING wrong.

This is America.

It should not be this way.

We the People must be able to change it.

Is psychology a science or a political and financial tool of influence?

There was a piece today on "conversion therapies" of homosexuals in South Carolina - something that was prohibited by the government in New York.

Psychology - that is used extensively and often, as the only "evidence" in CPS proceedings - appears to be not a science, but a tool. 

Not such a long time ago, when families desired to get rid of a woman suffering from a postnatal depression, or who were doing what people did not understand and preferred to label as "witchcraft", or lock up heiresses to use their fortune, they were sent to "Bedlam", insane asylums, because criticizing men were deemed as a sign of insanity. 

Psychology is now used as a sword, and the word of psychologist is uncritically accepted in awarding custody of children and in separating families, where psychologists (paid by CPS) "find", predictably, for CPS and in favor of separation of children from families. 

Of course, when that same separation of children from families can be used to bash Trump, then psychologists change course and say that separation of children from adults who claim to be their parents when illegally crossing the U.S. border will bring irreparable harm to children. 

There is also the recent scandal with the American Psychological Association pronouncing pedophilia as a "sexual orientation".

After public protests the APA changed its "scientific" pronouncement to a "mental health disorder" - creating even  worse problem.

I have the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5), where pedophilia is deemed such a disorder.

Yet, every person convicted of sex crimes against children is then presumed sick and subjected to "sex offender treatment", a large industry in the United States - and that includes "treating" children who engaged in experimenting as "sex offenders". 

Which creates a problem - because if a person is sick, he might not be criminally responsible for his actions.  And, if he is criminally responsible, he is not sick.  

So, psychologists, while playing a crucial role in convictions for sex crimes and making "treating" sex offenders (while agreeing that pedophilia "is not curable") into a huge multi-million dollar industry - do not really know whether it is a sexual orientation, a disease, or just a deliberate criminal proclivity.

As to changing the label on pedophilia from sexual orientation to a mental health disorder, the American Psychological Association shot itself in the foot, practically confirming that clinical psychology has nothing to do with science.

Have you ever seen demonstration against a manual how to diagnose, let's say, a heart attack?  Cancer?  Infections? Diabetes?

And approaches to diagnosing medical conditions changed by doctors because of public protests?

And here comes the latest point of public protests - the so-called "gay conversion therapy". 

It has long been pointed out that homosexuality has been rendered a sin, a crime, a disease, then not a crime, and after that - "voted" to be not a disease based on political influences and not on evidence.

The change came quickly and dramatically.

Before 2003 homosexuality was a crime.

After 2003, Lawrence v Texas decided by the U.S. Supreme Court - it was no longer a crime.

Then, gay marriage was allowed in some states.

In 2011 psychologists "decided" that now it is embarrassing to call homosexuality a mental heath disorder and removed that from the DSM.

In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a precedent, "made law" (that court is not allowed by the U.S. Constitution to make law, but it still did) allowing gay marriage in the entire United States.

Now the type of therapy offering "conversion" of homosexuals is forbidden in many states.  

Once again.  A type of therapy is forbidden by law as harmful to people, which was before that not deemed harmful and even beneficial - on the basis of claims of those same psychologists.

First, psychologists claimed, after religious ministers who claimed that homosexuality is a mortal sin, that homosexuality is a mental health disorder and needs treatment. 

Then in some states (like South Carolina) it still remained a disorder, with gay conversion therapy available, and in New York such a therapy is forbidden by the government. 

Oh, and let's not forget that in the times of slavery in the U.S. psychiatrists claimed that slaves running from their masters are sick because the idea for a slave to consider that he deserves freedom and may want to run away from his owner is an expression of a mental health disorder. 

That "disease" was "discovered" in 1851 and given a name - "drapetomania".

6 years after this "discovery" the U.S. Supreme Court, judges who were themselves (or their families) slave-owners, refused to cancel slavery by a court precedent, the way they cancelled criminality of homosexuality - and plunged the supposedly "democratic" country into a bloody civil war over slavery.

By the way, in Russia which was at that time a monarchy, and also had slavery, slavery was abolished by a King's (Czar's) decree, earlier than in the U.S. - and no war ensued.

Of course, later, when Russia was captured by the Bolsheviks, in the USSR psychology and psychiatry was extensively used to "treat" dissidents into a vegetative state. 

Soviet psychiatrists invented the term "sluggish schizophrenia" to pin it upon anybody who disagreed with the government. 

So, how can we claim that psychology is a science if it sets as diseases personal opinions disagreeing with the status quo, or is used to justify silencing and punishment of slaves, women, dissidents, parents, heterosexuals, and pronounce certain behavior, opinions or thought processes as a disease, not disease or a crime under public pressure or based on political or financial influences?

And how can it be legal that people are convicted of crimes, their children are taken away, and now the U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether a person can be put to death - on the testimony of psychologists?

EDNY has established the same precedent as I've established for my clients in NDNY in March of 2015 - no warrantless searches based on child abuse/neglect investigations

In March of 2015 I have established for my three clients in federal court a precedent, where the court refused to give "qualified immunity" to social services for warrantless searches of a residence and a car.

On June 11, 2018 the same decision was made by the federal court in the Eastern District of New York in the case called Thompson v Clark - police officers were denied qualified immunity for a warrantless search of a residence and for beating up of a resident when the police came to a residence on a false child abuse report and broke down the door - since the resident refused to open the door without a search warrant.

So, in at least 2 federal districts out of 4 in the State of New York the police and social services may not search residences without a court order/search warrant.

I cover a lot of ground as to warrantless searches by social services and police and other criminal attributes of social services investigations in my published book "The Oxygen Mask Rule", the first book of its kind dedicated to defense of parents in child abuse and neglect proceedings in New York, and the first book in a planned series.

Published a book on defense of parents in child abuse and neglect proceedings in New York Family Court

I have finally published today the first of the books I have been working on for a long time - the beginning of the series "Defense of parents in child neglect and abuse proceedings in Family Court in New York".

Here is the cover of the book, it is available right now in both the Kindle (electronic) format, and in a paper format on Amazon.com.

As far as I know, there are no other books available on the issue of trial advocacy on behalf of parents in child neglect and abuse cases at all, and in such cases in New York Family Courts in particular.

This subject is not taught in law schools and is not tested on bar examinations, so there is no guarantee for the parent, if the parent either hires an attorney or has an attorney assigned to him in court, that the attorney actually knows this area of law - because attorneys usually learn this law by either self-teaching or being mentored by other attorneys.

This first book of the planned series is dedicated to the subject that causes the most number of fatal mistakes made by parents at the very beginning of CPS investigation, before any court case is filed and before any attorney gets into the picture - the mistake of believing the CPS that the case is "civil" in nature, that no criminal investigation is done at the same time as the CPS investigation in every single case.

Believing CPS (and police who often comes with CPS to the parent's home), parents talk to CPS, open their homes for their searches, and sign any number of papers driven by fear that otherwise the parent will lose his child.

The book provides an overview of statutes showing that proceedings in Family Court may be constitutionally characterized as criminal in nature; and, even if courts resist that characterization, provides techniques of proving to the Family Court, in the event the parent is called to testify against himself, which CPS often do, that the parent is entitled to the 5th Amendment protection, not to testify and not to be subject to contempt of court for refusing to testify.

The book has an extensive case study, with an analysis of constitutionality of court decisions, as well as with an analysis of mistakes that have caused the drastic consequences for the parent.

While the electronic format of the book does not allow a lot of latitude in providing lists of authorities, the table of authorities is included in the paper version of the book.

Buyers of the paper version of the book are allowed to get the electronic version of the book at a deep discount.

While the electronic version may be convenient to take with you on our phone or tablet without showing what you are reading, a paper book can be conveniently used by parents, law students and attorneys working in this area of law because of the listing of all legal authorities.

Statutes in this area of law are written in a deliberately confusing, convoluted way, and attorneys with large caseloads often do not have time to do the kind of research that was presented in this book.

The book contains a section explaining how to transform texts of New York statutes into a readable format to make them more understandable.  Examples of such transformations, and what such a transformation does to improve understanding of such statutes is provided.

The book contains constitutional analysis on important issues relevant to the topic of the book, criminal aspects of "civil" child neglect and abuse proceedings in New York Family Courts, including but not limited to:

• analysis of what makes a court proceeding civil or criminal in nature, from a constitutional standpoint;
• analysis of several contempt and contempt-like statute that may be used against parents by Family Courts in order to put parents in jail for "non-compliance" with various court orders, a detailed analysis, based on mandatory precedents, of constitutionality of such statutes, and of constitutionality of Family Court practices in application of such statutes;
• verification what makes a contempt proceeding civil or criminal in nature, what is the difference in mandatory constitutional procedure, and how Family Courts often confuse or misuse criminal-in-nature contempt statutes under the guise of civil proceedings;
• constitutional issues involved in forced "evaluations";
• constitutional issues involved in forced drug-and-alcohol testing;
• constitutional issues involved in court orders giving social services a blanket authority to "supervise" parents and to order them to undergo any "evaluations" and tests at all, and procedures required by the Family Court Act and by the U.S. Constitution to be followed by courts to issue such orders;
• constitutional issues involved in branding parents "sex offenders" where they were never convicted (and often were never even charged) for a sex offense, the New York State policy of such branding that comes with a requirement to separate the so-branded parent from his children;
• constitutional issues of punishing parents for inability to pay for evaluations, or for asserting their true legal status as a non-sex offender;
• constitutional issues of punishing parents for any type of "noncompliance" by separating them from their children, or by threats of such separations;
• constitutional issues involved in forced speech of parents during the "civil" Family Court child abuse or neglect proceedings - in court-ordered evaluations and in forced testimony of parents, when they are called to testify against themselves at trial;
• constitutional issues involved in presence of criminal prosecutors in Family Court proceedings and of their access to record of such proceedings and of the central state child maltreatment register;
• constitutional issues and procedures related to three types of searches in Family Court - of the parent's home, body and mind.

I hope that the book will be helpful, as a textbook and a reference in this sensitive and difficult area of law.